The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

Not it is not. People don't really change all that much in a few hundred years. Its called the collective unconscious by Jung. Symbolic at best it may be, illogical not.

You don't prosecute the children for the fathers crimes. Collective Unconscious is rubbish in this context, the more precise definition is retribution.

Your seeking PENITENCE as a form of retribution from a collective that is removed. Using 70 years as an aggregate life span of the Briton, the events and political landscape has long since changed - and certainly in an argument put forward, that Britain as it stands today, may not comment because of actions committed from a Britain as it stood decades ago, is irrelevant. The assertion That Britain isn't a democratic state, and that as the people that live and die electing it are not fluid as they havn't changed that much (never mind it being the actions of another generation) as have the evolution of laws & politics that govern it and the reason those laws have been debated on & passed on the floor of parliament by the people the people themselves elect, isn't just obnoxious - it's ignorant. Juxtapose at your own peril.
Take any major Western, Eastern or African Nation over the past 2 Millenia and use that argument.

Your collective Unconscious definition isn't even appropriate. Why should Britain, if seeing a wrong, not be conscious of a wrong, based on a perceived wrong committed decades ago?! It is a very poorly understood field by psychiatrists when it comes to dealing with people who feel resentment for actions perpetrated by an entity that no longer exists, both in reality for the patient (the person feeling resentment towards the subject) that was never in contact, upon an entity that isn't responsible for another's actions - and that of the subject of the resentment themselves, who is completely powerless & at the whim of the forbearer. Im not suggesting your a mental patient, I am however suggesting you look at the picture objectively especially when it comes down to the individual.

Saying people are collectively unconscious because a government has failed to stand up and say sorry (for an act it didn't commit, and mindful that a request for reparations may well be made, from taxpayers dollars, paid by people who don't had anything to do with the actions of their forbears) and the evident incapacity to determine what reparations are necessary, and to what length and extent - can easily turn into moral usury.

You don't prosecute the children for the fathers crimes. Collective Unconscious is rubbish in this context, the more precise definition is retribution.

Your seeking PENITENCE as a form of retribution from a collective that is removed. Using 70 years as an aggregate life span of the Briton, the events and political landscape has long since changed - and certainly in an argument put forward, that Britain as it stands today, may not comment because of actions committed from a Britain as it stood decades ago, is irrelevant. The assertion That Britain isn't a democratic state, and that as the people that live and die electing it are not fluid as they havn't changed that much (never mind it being the actions of another generation) as have the evolution of laws & politics that govern it and the reason those laws have been debated on & passed on the floor of parliament by the people the people themselves elect, isn't just obnoxious - it's ignorant. Juxtapose at your own peril.
Take any major Western, Eastern or African Nation over the past 2 Millenia and use that argument.

Your collective Unconscious definition isn't even appropriate. Why should Britain, if seeing a wrong, not be conscious of a wrong, based on a perceived wrong committed decades ago?! It is a very poorly understood field by psychiatrists when it comes to dealing with people who feel resentment for actions perpetrated by an entity that no longer exists, both in reality for the patient (the person feeling resentment towards the subject) that was never in contact, upon an entity that isn't responsible for another's actions and that of the subject of the resentment, who is completely powerless & at the whim of the forbearer. Im not suggesting your a mental patient, I am however suggesting you look at the picture objectively especially when it comes down to the individual.